*2  V '/V\  . 


THE  SEVENTH  COUNCIL 

OF  I HE 

Reformed  Churches  Through- 
out the  World. 


Che  Bible  and  the  Reformed  Churches. 


The  Opening  sera\on 


Professor  JOHN  DeWitt,  D.  D., 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary. 


9 


w 


9 


9 


9 


9 


9 


9 


9 


THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  REFORMED  CHURCHES. 


I Peter,  1,23.  Being  born  again,  not  of  corruptible  seed,  but  of  incor 
ruptiblc,  by  t lie  word  of  God  which  livetli  and  abideth  forever. 


I am  sure  that  I express  a feeling  common  to  us  all 
when  I say,  that  it  is  with  singular  propriety  that  the  Coun- 
cil of  the  Reformed  Churches  throughout  the  World  is 
met  in  the  Capital  of  the  United  States  of  America.  For 
the  constitutive  idea  of  these  Churches,  operating  as  a 
historical  force  through  their  membership  in  America, 
exerted  a powerful  influence  in  securing  for  these  States 
an  independent  life,  and,  when  that  had  been  secured,  in 
organizing  their  Federal  Government.  Nor  will  it  be 
denied  that  throughout  the  entire  period,  which  began 
with  the  beginning  of  the  national  life,  the  Reformed 
Churches  in  America  have  been  a factor 'of  the  first 
importance  among  those  which  have  determined  the 
Nation’s  political,  social,  and  religious  development. 

These  striking  and  acknowledged  historical  facts 
almost  compel  us,  on  this  occasion,  to  direct  our  atten- 
tion to  what  I have  called  the  constitutive  idea  of  the 
Reformed  Churches.  And  I shall  have  you  with  me  in 
the  statement  that  this  idea  is  to  be  found  in  the  attitude 
of  these  Churches  toward  the  Holy  Bible.  This  attitude 
is  embodied  in  the  well-known  phrase  of  William  Chil- 
lingworth : “The  Bible,  and  the  Bible  alone,  is  the 
religion  of  Protestants.”  It  involves  the  two  great  pro- 
positions that  the  Holy  Scriptures  are  the  supreme  rule 


By  Prof.  JOHN  DeWITT,  D.  D., 


Princeton  Theological  Seminary. 


2 


of  religious  faith  and  conduct,  and  that  being  sufficient 
and  perspicuous,  the}’  do  not  need,  for  religious  purposes, 
the  mediation  of  the  Church  as  either  witness  or  inter- 
preter. Of  course,  this  is  the  attitude  of  all  the  Protest- 
ant Churches.  But  in  the  Reformed  Churches  the  con- 
viction of  its  importance  has  been  so  profound  and  its 
influence  has  been  so  dominant  and  continuous  that 
their  attitude  toward  the  Bible  has  been  their  most  dis- 
tinctive note.  While  other  Churches  have  emphasized 
their  Catholicity  or  their  Apostolicity,  the  Reformed 
Churches  have  emphasized  their  loyalty  to  Holy  Scrip- 
ture. They  have  believed  that  they  themselves  would 
stand  or  fall  with  the  Bible;  and  they  have  felt  that  no 
greater  honor  could  be  paid  to  them  than  to  call  them, 
by  eminence,  the  Churches  of  the  Book.  And  since 
their  genesis  as  Reformed  was  due  to  their  secession  from 
the  Latin  Church  because,  as  they  claimed,  that  Church 
had  misinterpreted  and  obscured  the  Bible ; and  since 
they  claimed  to  have  rehabilitated  the  Bible  by  making 
it  their  distinctive  standard  and  their  supreme  law,  we, 
at  least,  who  are  their  successors  and  believe  their  claim 
to  have  been  justified,  may  well  employ,  to  describe  their 
origin  as  Reformed,  the  words  of  the  Apostle  Peter,  and 
assert  that  they  were  born  again,  not  of  corruptible  seed, 
but  of  incorruptible,  by  the  word  of  God,  which  livetli 
and  abideth  forever. 

It  would  be  far  from  the  truth  to  say  that  the  Reformed 
Churches  stand  alone  in  their  attachment  to  and  depend- 
ence on  the  Holy  Scriptures.  The  Great  Roman  Church, 
in  which  Mediaeval  Christianity  still  survives,  asserts 
not  less  clearly  and  strenuously  than  ourselves  their 
divine  inspiration  and  authority.  But  it  places  tradi- 
tion side  by  side  with  Scripture,  and  of  both  Scripture 
and  tradition  it  makes  the  teaching  Church  both  the 
authoritative  witness  and  the  interpreter.  It  would 
require  more  time  than  custom  allots  to  this  opening 
sermon  adequately  to  acknowledge  the  indebtedness  of 


Christendom  to  the  Anglican  Communion  for  the  great 
literature  which  its  divines  of  every  school  have  written 
in  the  defense  and  the  interpretation  of  the  Bible.  Were 
this  contribution  to  be  subtracted  from  the  body  of 
Christian  literature,  the  loss  to  the  world  would  be 
incalculable.  But  such  has  been  the  emphasis  placed 
by  Anglicanism  on  its  claim  to  historic  orders,  and  such 
has  been  its  dalliance  with  the  idea  of  a priestly  clergy, 
that  it  is  probable  that  the  dominant  party  of  its  clergy  is 
prepared,  not  only  to  disclaim  the  name  Protestant,  but 
also  to  attack  the  distinctively  Protestant  attitude  toward 
Holy  Scripture. 

The  attitudes  of  the  Roman  and  the  Anglican 
Churches,  just  noticed,  serve  to  bring  out  clearly  the 
significance  of  the  Reformed  Churches’  contention,  that 
the  Bible  alone  is  the  rule  of  religious  faith.  Claiming 
neither  a priestly  character  for  their  clergy  nor  anything 
like  magical  virtue  for  their  sacraments,  and  setting  no 
high  value,  indeed,  no  religious  value  at  all,  on  tactual 
successions  in  ordination,  the  peculiarity  of  their  minis- 
try has  been  that,  relying  on  nothing  else,  they  have 
held  up  the  Bible  as  the  Word  of  God,  the  revelation  of 
His  will,  to  be  believed  and  studied  and  obeyed.  For 
though  they  co-ordinated  with  the  Bible  prayer  and  the 
sacraments  as  means  of  grace,  they  found  the  sole  ground 
of  their  belief  in  prayer’s  efficacy  and  the  sole  warrant 
for  their  sacraments  in  the  Written  Word. 

The  exaltation  and  exclusive  employment  of  Holy 
Scripture  produced  in  the  Reformed  Churches  a distinct- 
ive type  of  Christian  character;  which  I think  we  are 
justified  in  calling  the  intellectual  type.  Of  course,  in 
using  this  term,  I am  saying  nothing  about  intellectual 
gifts  and  attainments.  I am  endeavoring  to  describe  a 
religious  type.  And  I am  sure,  that  we  may  properly 
call  that  the  intellectual  type  of  Christian  character, 
which  is  formed  and  nourished  exclusively  by  Biblical 
truths ; apprehended  by  the  understanding,  made  ex- 


4 


plicit  by  exposition,  correlated  with  the  fundamental 
truths  of  reason,  organized  into  a system,  and  addressed, 
through  the  intellect,  to  the  conscience  and  the  will.  As 
we  all  know,  this  is  the  type  which  is  characteristic 
to-day,  and  always  has  been  characteristic  of  the  Re- 
formed Churches  of  Europe  and  America.  From  their 
possession  and  cultivation  of  this  type  of  religion  it  fol- 
lowed inevitably,  that  these  Churches  separated  sharply 
the  voluntary  outgoing  of  the  affections  toward  God 
from  the  necessary  feelings  which  arise  in  the  presence 
of  beauty  or  sublimity  ; and  that,  recognizing  the  former 
only  as  having  a religious  character,  they  refused  to 
employ  the  material  fine  arts  as  means  to  excite  or  to 
express  religious  devotion.  Nor  did  it  less  inevitably 
follow  from  this  intellectual  habit,  that  they  severely 
repressed  all  tendency  to  mysticism  in  themselves,  and 
sometimes  unjustly  denounced  it  when  it  appeared  in 
others. 

It  is  not  my  purpose  either  to  eulogize  or  to  criticise 
the  type  of  Christianity  by  which  the  Reformed  Churches 
are  thus  distinguished.  I am  only  endeavoring  to  be 
true  to  history,  in  describing  the  genius  of  the  great 
family  of  Churches  whose  representatives  we  are.  And, 
above  all,  I am  trying  to  make  clear  that,  because  we 
have  thoroughly  abandoned  the  priestly  claims  and  sac- 
ramentarianism  of  Media3val  Christianity;  and  have 
denied  ourselves,  believing  them  delusive  allies,  the  aid 
of  the  material  fine  arts;  and  have  refused  to  surrender 
ourselves  to  the  delicious  charms  of  religious  mysticism  ; 
in  a word,  because  our  type  of  Christianity  is  distinct- 
ively intellectual;  we  of  all  the  Churches  are,  perhaps, 
most  vitally  interested  in  the  fate  of  the  Holy  Bible. 
For  if  the  Holy  Bible  were  once  discredited  ; what  would 
be  left  to  the  Reformed  Churches,  but  the  platitudes  of 
natural  ethics,  and  the  “ half-starved  and  hunger-bitten 
dogmas”  of  natural  religion  ; not  seen  in  the  dim  aisles 
of  cathedrals  or  in  the  shaded  groves  of  mysticism,  but 
scrutinized  in  the  clear  light  of  the  open  day? 

This,  undoubtedly,  has  been  the  view  of  the  Reformed 
Churches  themselves.  Their  profound  and  abiding  con- 
viction, that  the  cause  of  the  Bible  and  the  cause  of 
supernatural  religion  are  one,  they  have  asserted  in 
many  ways  in  every  period  of  their  history.  They  have 
affirmed  it  in  the  plainest  terms  in  their  Confessions; 


they  have  made  the  Bible  the  supreme  judge  in  religious 
controversies.  Turning  away  from  Visible  Churches, 
which  they  held  might  apostatize,  and  from  Ecclesiasti- 
cal Councils,  which  they  asserted  might  err,  to  God  him- 
self, speaking  in  his  written  Word,  they  have  repaired  to 
the  Bible  alone  as  to  the  sufficient  revelation  of  God’s 
nature  and  will,  the  highest  rule,  and  the  one  unim- 
peachable witness  in  religion.  Their  system  of  doctrine, 
they  have  defended  only  as  founded  on  and  issuing  from 
Holy  Scripture.  Beginning  with  John  Calvin,  the  father 
of  modern  Biblical  interpretation,  their  divines  have 
yielded  to  those  of  no  other  Church  in  their  endeavors,  by 
historical  and  grammatical  study,  to  ascertain  the  Bible’s 
exact  text  and  precise  significance;  for  in  their  belief 
the  phrases,  “Scripture  saith  ” and  “God  saitli,”  are 
synonymous  and  interchangeable.  The  public  teachings 
of  their  pulpits  have  been  expositions  of  the  Word. 
Their  historic  songs  of  praise  have  been  its  inspired 
lyrics.  Though  the  most  of  these  Churches,  at  first, 
employed  fixed  forms  in  their  public  worship,  the  feeling 
among  them  was  unanimous,  that  a stately  uniformity, 
though  in  itself  desirable,  would  be  too  dearly  bought,  if 
an  imposed  liturgy  were  suffered  to  compete  with  the 
Holy  Bible  for  the  affections  of  their  people.  This  Bible, 
they  made  the  fundamental  text  book  of  childhood  and 
youth  in  the  home  and  the  parochial  school.  The  duty 
of  its  regular  devotional  study  by  the  people  throughout 
life,  they  enforced  by  their  Directories,  by  the  character 
of  their  Catechisms,  and  by  the  teachings  of  their  pul- 
pits. Its  translation  into  the  tongues  of  the  peoples 
among  whom  they  labored  has  been  among  the  chief 
cares  of  their  missionaries  in  foreign  lands  ; and  no 
Churches  have  been  more  enthusiastic  or  more  generous 
in  securing  for  it  the  widest  circulation,  without  note  or 
comment,  as  the  people’s  Book  of  books.  In  no  way, 
perhaps,  has  the  devotion  of  these  Churches  to  the  cause 
of  the  Bible  been  shown  more  clearly,  than  in  the 
promptness  and  vigor  and  spirit  of  their  apologetics  in 
its  behalf.  Against  every  assault,  they  have  furnished 
abundant  defenders,  equal  in  ability  and  learning  to  the 
task  the  assault  created  and  animated  by  the  spirit  which 
nerves  men  only  when  they  are  fighting  for  what  they 
hold  most  dear. 


6 


We  need  not  be  disturbed  if  we  have  to  confess  that 
not  always  have  those,  representing  the  Reformed 
Churches,  rightly  read  the  Holy  Bible,  or  that  sometimes 
they  have  made  the  Word  of  God  responsible  for  their 
errors  and  excesses.  It  would  have  been  strange,  in- 
deed, if  they  had  not,  now  and  again,  misinterpreted  or 
misapplied  it.  What  Church  has  not  at  times  affirmed 
moral  quality  of  things  indifferent;  or  reached  conclu- 
sions concerning  God’s  will  after  a narrow  induction  of 
Scripture;  or,  in  the  strain  of  battle,  been  pushed  by  the 
foe  into  indefensible  positions?  But  the  final  judgment 
of  history  on  a great  institution  is  determined,  not  by 
exceptional  falls  or  aberrations,  but  by  its  whole  career 
and  its  total  influence  on  the  life  of  the  world.  Judged 
in  this  large  way,  the  Reformed  Churches  must  be  held 
to  have  been  one  of  the  most  potent  and  beneficent  forces 
in  the  life  of  Europe  and  America,  since  the  Reforma- 
tion of  the  sixteenth  century.  And  the  greatness  and 
beneficence  of  their  influence  must  be  ascribed,  most  of 
all,  to  the  exalted  place  and  the  all-important  function 
these  Churches  lia've  assigned  to  Holy  Scripture. 

The  great  and  splendid  story  of  the  limitation  of  class 
privilege,  of  the  enfranchisement  of  the  people,  of  the  social 
amelioration  of  the  masses,  of  the  care  of  the  unfortunate, 
of  the  diminution  of  the  hon  ors  of  war,  of  the  popular 
and  the  higher  education,  of  the  deepening  indignation 
throughout  the  world  in  the  presence  of  cruelty  or  of  out- 
raged justice,  and  of  advancing  civil  liberty  and  self-gov- 
ernment prophesying  the  Commonwealth  of  man:— this 
story  of  the  last  three  centuries  will  not  be  fairly  told,  if  a 
large  share  of  these  achievements  is  not  assigned  these  Re- 
formed Churches;  and  if  the  reason  ot  their  share  is  not 
attributed  to  their  attitude  toward  the  written  Word  ot  God. 
Or,  fixing  our  regard  on  the  sphere  of  the  distinctively 
religious  life ; if  we  only  permit  ourselves  to  judge  our 
policy  by  its  fruits,  we  need  not  fear  that  the  Reformed 
Churches  robbed  the  people,  when,  giving  tip  the  aids  of 
a priestly  clergy  and  the  material  tine  arts  and  mysti- 
cism, they  commended  to  the  people  the  Word  of  God, 
to  he  devoutly  studied  as  their  only  rule  of  religious  faith 
and  duty.  In  their  adoring  worship  of  the  living  God 
alone,  in  their  confident  faith  in  his  forgiving  mercy, 
through  the  merits  of  his  Atoning  Son,  in  their  profound 


view  of  sin,  in  their  high  ethical  and  deep  spiritual  con- 
ception of  the  religious  life,  in  their  abundant  philan- 
thropic and  missionary  labors  and  the  large  generosity  bv 
which  these  have  been  supported  in  their  Catholic  concep-  ' 
tion  of  the  visible  Church,  and  in  the  fraternal  attitude 
toward  other  Churches  by  which  they  have  given  ex- 
pression and  effect  to  their  conception  ; the  Reformed 
Churches  are  entitled  to  say  that  they  have  made  clear 
in  their  history,  that  the  Holy  Bible  by  itself  begets  and 
supports  a type  of  piety  as  lofty,  as  devout,  and  as  ethical 
and  spiritual  as  any  the  Church  has  known.  The  vision 
of  the  Saviour  of  the  world  has  never  been  dimmed  or 
obstructed  in  our  Churches  or  our  homes;  the  graces  of 
the  Spirit  have  beautified  the  lives  of  our  people  ; prayer 
has  hallowed  them  ; their  characters  have  been  made 
strong  by  the  practice  of  the  ethical  virtues  as  Christian 
duties;  and  the  whole  world  has  known  and  recognized 
and  rejoiced  in  their  work  of  faith,  and  labor  of  love, 
and  patience  of  hope  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

Noble  as  it  is  in  itself  and  great  and  blessed  as  has 
been  its  mission  to  the  world,  the  intellectual  type  of  re- 
ligion characteristic  of  the  Reformed  Churches  is  some- 
times attended  by  a serious  danger  to  faith.  For,  in  a 
naturalistic  age,  the  study  of  the  Bible,  by  those  to  whom 
the  right  of  private  judgment  has  been  accorded,  may 
easily  be  transmuted  into  destructive  criticism;  so  that 
the  Bible  will  be  interpreted  with  a view  to  the  elimina- 
tion of  its  supernatural  history  and  doctrines,  and,  in 
the  end,  its  rule  over  belief  and  life  be  rejected.  We  all 
know  that  this  danger  has  been  often  insisted  on  as  in- 
hering in  the  very  essence  of  Protestantism.  We  have 
been  told  that  the  words  Protestantism  and  Rationalism, 
when  employed  to  describe  methods  of  dealing  with  the 
Bible,  are  convertible  terms;  and  that,  if  we  describe 
Protestantism  by  its  historical  influence,  we  must  call  it 
the  mother  of  the  modern  disbelief  of  the  Bible. 

Now,  so  far  as  history  is  concerned,  it  is  rarely,  if  it 
is  ever,  possible  to  say  of  any  outbreak  of  unbelief,  what 
its  exact  historical  causes  were.  Most  often,  unbelief 
appears  in  the  life  of  a nation  or  an  age,  quite  suddenly 
and  mysteriously.  And  it  always  appears  as  an  assimi- 
lating force,  nourishing  itself  on  all  prevailing  modes  of 
thought,  until,  finally,  it  exhausts  itself  and  dies.  The 
historian,  in  a succeeding  age,  is  quite  apt  to  mistake  for 


8 


its  historical  cause  some  one  of  the  many  modes  of 
thought  by  which,  in  its  day,  it  was  nourished.  No 
doubt,  in  the  eighteenth  century,  Deism  in  Great  Britain 
fed  itself  on  Protestantism.  And  there  is  just  as  little 
doubt  that,  in  the  same  century,  Deism  in  France  fed 
itself  on  Romanism.  But  it  would  he  inaccurate  to  say 
that  Romanism  was  the  responsible  cause  of  Deism  in 
France,  or  to  say  that  Protestantism  was  its  responsible 
cause  in  Great  Britain.  It  would,  indeed,  be  easy  to 
construct  a plausible  argument  for  each  contention.  On 
the  one  hand  it  could  be  urged,  that  the  free  exercise  of 
the  human  reason  in  the  study  of  Scripture  produced 
unbelief;  and,  on  the  other,  that  skepticism  appeared  as 
a reaction  from  the  too  large  demands  made  upon  faith. 
There  would  be  a measure  of  truth  in  each  of  these 
statements.  But  the  historical  cause  of  the  Deism  of  the 
eighteenth  century  would  in  neither  case  be  told.  The 
truth  is,  that  the  great  problems  of  historical  causation 
are  never  easy  of  solution.  And  before  the  action  and 
re-action  of  the  voluntary  co-efficients  in  national  life, 
we  may  well  stand  in  modest  silence,  or  confess  with 
frankness  our  inability  to  proportion  causes  and  effects 
in  human  history. 

Nor  has  anyone  a right  to  call  the  Protestantism  of 
the  Reformation  essential  Rationalism,  because  it  substi- 
tuted Scripture  for  the  Church  as  the  ultimate  rule  of 
faith,  or  because  it  bade  the  people  employ  whatever  aid 
they  could  obtain  in  exploring  the  meaning  of  God’s 
written  Word.  For  faith  in  the  supernatural  was  at  the 
centre  of  the  Reformation,  just  as  truly  as  it  was  at  the 
centre  of  Mediaeval  Christianity.  Nor  was  this  super- 
natural belief  less  real  or  less  influential,  because  its 
specific  object  was  the  indwelling  and  illumining  Divine 
Spirit  giving  spiritual  efficacy  to  the  written  Word,  in- 
stead of  God  communicating  grace  through  a system  of 
seven  sacraments. 

So  much,  we  may  rightly. say  against  the  charge  that 
Protestantism  legitimates  religious  unbelief.  And  yet 
we  must,  I think,  confess,  that  when  naturalistic  modes 
of  thought  are  prevalent  and  honored  and  influential ; 
when  second  causes  so  hold  men’s  attention  that  the 
First  Cause  is  easily  “ removed  far  from  them  on  the 
field  of  their  contemplation,”  there  is  peculiar  danger 
that  we,  especially  of  the  Reformed  Churches,  shall  he 


9 


powerfully  tempted  to  let  the  spirit  of  the  time  control 
or  strongly  influence  us  in  our  study  of  the  Bible;  until 
we  look  askance  at  or  minimize  the  miraculous  in  its 
history,  and  construe,  by  the  laws-of  natural  evolution, 
those  great  events  which,  as  narrated  in  Holy  Scripture, 
we  had  before  interpreted  as  God’s  miraculous  and  gra- 
cious interruptions  of  the  awful  tragedy  of  a sinful  and 
fallen  race. 

I do  not  presume  to  say,  that  a conscious  naturalistic 
habit  of  mind  is  the  source  of  what  we  have  agreed  to 
call  the  new  Biblical  criticism  (of  which  we  now  hear  so 
much),  so  far  as  its  conclusions  are  defended  within  the 
Reformed  Churches.  We  are  bound  to  accept  and  to 
defend  the  sincerity  of  our  own  brethren  in  their  dis- 
avowed of  anti-supernaturalism,  and  in  their  assurances 
that,  in  accepting  as  ascertained  truth  the  reconstruction 
of  the  history  of  Israel  made  necessary  by  their  studies 
of  the  literary  phenomena  of  the  Old  Testament,  they 
still  receive  the  Bible  as  the  infallible  rule  of  faith  and 
practice,  and  are  endeavoring,  in  full  faith  of  the  super- 
natural, to  open  the  Scriptures  to  the  people. 

Nevertheless,  we  all  know  that  the  new  criticism  pro- 
poses a revolution  in  our  interpretation  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment history,  and  is  beginning  to  propose  a like  revolu- 
tion in  our  interpretation  of  the  New  Testament  history. 
In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  Bible  is  not  only  supreme  in 
our  Church,  but  occupies  an  exclusive  supremacy  ; and 
in  view  of  that  intellectual  habit  of  religion,  peculiar  to 
us;  on  which  I have  already  dwelt,  it  is  not  too  much 
to  say,  that  this  proposal  has  produced  in  the  Reformed 
Churches  a serious  crisis  of  belief,  of  which  we  are  bound 
to  take  some  notice  in  Councils  like  this  in  which  we  are 
gathered. 

I say,  we  are  bound  to  take  notice  of  the  present 
crisis  of  Biblical  belief.  It  would  be  unintellectual  op- 
timism or  sinful  obscurantism  to  pass  it  by  in  silence. 
And,  therefore,  since  the  circumstances  in  which  we  are 
met  have  led  me  to  speak  of  the  supreme  and  exclusive 
place  which  the  Reformed  Churches  have  given  to  the 
Bible,  I should  be  evading  the  very  subject  of  my  ser- 
mon if  I did  not  go  on  to  say  a few  words  about  the 
relation  of  the  new  criticism  to  our  historical  position  ; 
and  to  consider  the  interesting  question,  whether,  if  we 
accept  the  conclusions  of  the  new  criticism,  we  can  still 


10 


hold  by  the  Bible  as  our  supreme  rule  in  religious  belief 
and  conduct. 

You  will  agree  with  me,  that  this  historical  attitude 
of  our  Churches  toward  the  Bible,  involves,  at  the  least, 
the  statements,  that  the  Bible  is  one;  that  it  is  true; 
that  it  is  inspired  ; and  that  it  is  self-evidencing.  How- 
ever we  may  define  them,  the  Bible’s  unity,  truth,  in- 
spiration and  self-evidencing  quality  cannot  be  given  up 
by  us  as  Reformed  Churches  without  a complete  revolu- 
tion. To  set  them  aside  would  be  lor  us,  at  least,  to  set 
aside  the  Bible.  For  there  would  be  no  meaning  to  our 
acceptance  of  the  Bible,  if  we  did  not  hold  it  as,  in  some 
sense,  a unity,  or,  if  we  did  not  hold  it,  as  in  some  sense, 
true  ; we  could  not  call  it  a revelation,  if  we  did  not  as- 
sign to  God,  in  some  sense,  its  authorship;  and  how 
could  it  oblige  the  people  to  receive  it  as  their  supreme 
rule  of  faith  and  duty,  if  it  did  not  authenticate  itself  as 
the  very  Word  of  God  to  man  ? 

What  then  do  we  mean  when  we  say  that  we  believe 
in  the  unity  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  or  that  we  accept 
them  as  one  Book?  That  we  do  say  this  we  all  know. 
It  is  implied  in  all  our  treatment  of  them,  as  well  as  in 
the  name  by  which  we  most  often  describe  them.  Their 
units  were,  indeed,  written  at  different  times,  and  are  in 
various  literary  forms;  and  a sharp  line  separates  the 
elder  writings  from  the  later.  Yet  the  sayings  of  St. 
Augustine,  that  “the  New  Testament  lies  hidden  in  the 
Old,  the  Old  lies  open  in  the  New,”  and  that  “if  we  dis- 
tinguish the  times  the  Scriptures  will  agree,”  have  com- 
mended themselves  to  the  judgment  of  the  Church.  As 
to  what  this  unity  is,  all  the  great  divisions  of  the  Cath- 
olic Church  are  agreed.  The  ecumenical  creeds  of  the 
Patristic  and  the  detailed  confessions  of  the  Reformation 
periods  alike' witness,  that  the  unity  of  Scripture  is  pre- 
cisely this:  that  it  contains  a system  of  supernatural 
truth  concerning  God  and  man  and  the  relations  between 
them;  and  that  this  system  of  truth,  as  it  lies  open  in 
the  New  Testament,  is  implicit  in  the  Old. 

Now,  how  are  we  to  maintain  this  unity  of  Scripture, 
if  we  accept  the  new  critical  view  of  the  Old  Testament 
which  posits,  as  underlying  the  whole  volume  as  at  last 
compiled,  a series  of  documents  of  which  the  several  re- 
ligious tendencies  are  in  conflict?  Or  how  are  we  to 
assert  the  unity  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  if  we 


11 


concede  that  the  Messianic  idea,  which  dominates  the 
New  Testament,  is  derived,  not  from  the  prophets  of  the 
Old  Testament,  but  from  their  prophetic  utterances  as 
mistakenly  interpreted  by  the  extra-canonical  apocalyptic 
writers?  Or  how,  finally,  shall  we  hold  to  this  unity,  if 
we  accept  the  conclusion  that  the  Nicene  theology  is  not 
yielded  by  the  Bible,  but  is  the  product  of  Greek  thought 
modifying,  or  rather  revolutionizing  the  primitive  Chris- 
tianity, which  was  little  more  than  a system  of  prac- 
tical ethics  joined  to  the  worship  of  Jesus?  1 do  not 
desire  to  be  polemical.  But  these  questions  must  be 
considered  by  us  as  organized  Churches.  We  cannot 
escape  them.  And  what  more  appropriate  occasion 
could  we  find  to  propound  them,  than  the  occasion  by 
which  we  are  assembled? 

Then  there  is  the  truth  of  the  Bible.  Need  I say 
that,  since  these  Reformed  Churches  have  been  organized 
on  the  basis  that  Holy  Scripture  is  the  supreme  and  in- 
fallible rule  of  faith  and  duty,  we  should  be  denying  the 
fundamental  principle  by  which  we  exist,  if  we  did  not 
hold  to  the  truthfulness  of  the  Bible  ? It  must  be  trust- 
worthy in  our  view,  or  it  will  be  impossible  for  us  to  con- 
ceive of  it  as  the  judge  in  religious  controversy.  It  is 
impossible,  therefore,  for  us  to  escape  the  serious  consid- 
eration of  the  question,  whether  the  conclusions  of  the 
new  criticism  can  be  made  to  consist  with  the  trust- 
worthiness of  the  Bible.  And  that  this  question  may  be 
before  us  in  a concrete  way,  I will  select  a striking  ex- 
ample from  the  reconstructed  history  of  Israel  which  the 
modern  criticism  almost  unanimously  assures  us  is  made 
necessary  by  the  literarv  study  of  the  Old  Testament. 

The  tabernacle,  which  is  described  at  length  and 
with  such  careful  attention  to  details  in  the  book  of 
Exodus,  we  are  told  by  the  author  of  that  book,  was 
actually  constructed  by  the  appointment  of  Moses  dur- 
ing the  wandering  in  the  wilderness,  and  was  intended 
to  be,  and  really  was,  the  shrine  of  the  sacrifices  of  the 
Levitical  law,  which  was  given  by  Moses  at  the  same 
period.  Now,  what  if  I should  be  compelled  to  reach 
the  conclusion,  that  the  tabernacle,  so  described,  was  not 
ordered  to  be  built  by  Moses  ; that  in  point  of  fact  it  was 
never  built  at  all;  that  it  is  only  an  imaginative  recon- 
struction of  the  temple  of  Solomon  ; and  that  the  story 
of  its  construction  was  fabricated  during  the  exile  in  the 


12 


interest  of  the  priestly  programme  of  that  late  period ; 
and  was  intended  to  provide  imaginatively  a shrine  of 
the  Mosaic  age  for  theLevitical  sacrifices,  which  are  said 
in  the  Pentateuch  to  have  been  prescribed  hv  Moses, 
but  with  which  Moses  had  no  more  to  do  than  he  had  to 
do  with  the  building  of  the  tabernacle,  which  was  never 
built  at  all?  What,  I say,  if  I should  be  compelled  to 
reach  this  conclusion  ? In  what  sense  could  I say  that 
I held  to  the  truthfulness  of  the  Old  Testament?  Could 
I hold  to  it  in  any  sense?  For  the  problem,  you  per- 
ceive, is  not  the  mere  problem  of  constructing  a dogmatic 
definition  of  inspiration.  Here  is  the  narrative  of  the 
organization  of  the  cultus  of  Israel  at  the  beginning  of 
its  national  life.  It  is  the  very  narrative  which  domi- 
nates the  whole  succeeding  history  of  Israel  as  it  lies  on 
the  face  of  the  Old  Testament.  That  whole  history  is 
thus  reconstructed  in  a way  which  it  is  tame  to  call  revo- 
lutionary.  And  since  the  reconstruction  has  been  made 
and  defended  with  the  greatest  frankness,  how  can  we 
help,  with  equal  and  reciprocal  frankness,  asking  the 
question  ; but  what,  in  this  reconstruction  of  history,  be- 
comes of  the  truth,  or  the  truthfulness,  or  the  trust- 
worthiness of  the  Old  Testament? 

Then,  the  Divine  inspiration  of  the  Bible  is  affirmed 
in  all  our  Confessions.  That  this  means,  in  some  sense, 
the  inbreathing  of  the  Divine  mind  into  the  texture  of 
Holy  Scripture  all  are  agreed.  Nor  shall  we  be  less 
unanimous  in  our  consent  that  the  end  of  the  inbreath- 
ing is  not  to  give  us  scientific  history,  but  to  give  to  Holy 
Scripture  a religious  quality,  and  to  make  the  Bible 
infallible  in  the  sphere  of  faith  and  duty.  And  were 
Christianity  a religion  unrelated  to  human  history,  it 
were  easy  to  conceive  of  its  Sacred  Books  as  thoroughly 
infallible  in  their  religious  teachings  and  yet  erroneous 
in  their  historical  narrative.  But  this  is  not  Christianity 
as  understood  by  the  Reformed  Churches,  or  as  embodied 
in  the  ecumenical  creeds.  Is  there  a doctrine  of  the 
faith  which  is  not  implicated  in  and  inseparable  from 
events  which  occurred  under  the  conditions  of  time  and 
space?  The  fall  of  man,  the  Incarnation,  the  Atone- 
ment, the  Resurrection,  the  Ascension,  the  coming  of  the 
Holy  Ghost;  what  are  these  but  historical  events,  bound, 
if  taught  at  all,  to  he  taught  as  history?  Or,  how  are 
we  to  unite  with  our  brethren  in  the  Apostle’s  Creed,  if 
we  do  not  assent  to  its  statement  of  the  historic  events, 


that  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord  was  conceived  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  suffered  under  Pontius 
Pilate,  was  crucified,  dead,  and  buried,  and  was  raised 
again  the  third  day?  I do  not  see  how  it  is  possible, 
however  closely  we  confine  the  mission  of  inspiration  to 
securing  the  religious  infallibility  of  the  Bible,  to  exclude 
tbe  Biblical  history.  And  if  we  include  Biblical  history 
at  all,  we  may  well  ask  those  who  exclude  a portion  of 
the  history  as  not  witnessed  to  by  inspiration,  to  formu- 
late tbe  law  of  exclusion. 

And,  there  is  that  self-evidencing  quality  of  Holy 
Scripture,  in  virtue  of  which  it  obliges  its  acceptance  by 
those  to  whom  it  is  given.  Of  course,  we  shall  all  say, 
that  what  precisely  is  evidenced,  is  not  immediately  the 
history,  but  those  doctrines,  like  the  love  of  God  and  the 
forgiveness  of  sin,  which  can  become  elements  of  indi- 
vidual experience.  But  to  evidence  these  is  mediately 
to  evidence  tbe  history  with  which  they  are  necessarily 
allied. 

Here,  then,  is  the  historical  attitude  of  the  Reformed 
Churches  toward  the  Bible,  and  here,  in  sharp  antithesis, 
is  the  new  Biblical  criticism  demanding  to  be  heard  and 
accepted.  It  is  perfectly  clear,  as  I have  already  said, 
that  we  have  reached  a crisis  of  belief.  Of  the  necessary 
result  of  the  wide  acceptance  of  the  new  critical  conclu- 
sions on  our  Churches  and  people,  it  is  unnecessary  to 
speak  at  any  length.  We  can  all  see  that,  in  the  event 
of  such  an  acceptance,  there  will  be  a revolution  in  our 
ecclesiastical  and  religious  life.  It  will  be  impossible  for 
the  Bible  to  continue  to  hold  the  supreme  place  it  holds 
to-day;  and,  this  ancient  support  of  our  ecclesiastical 
and  religious  life,  having  been  withdrawn  or  weakened, 
many  of  us  will  seek  some  other  support  in  its  place  or 
as  its  ally;  like  sacramentarianism  with  sacerdotal 
directors;  or  aestheticism  with  its  gratifications;  or 
mysticism  with  its  vague  but  powerful  emotions.  I am 
inclined  to  believe,  however,  that  because  of  the  intellect- 
ual habit  bred  in  our  people  and  our  churches  by  the 
education  of  almost  four  centuries,  the  first  halting  place 
of  the  most  of  us  will  be  rationalism.  ' We  must  not 
conceal  from  ourselves  that  exactly  this  disintegration 
has  once  and  again  befallen  Reformed  Churches,  and 
there  is  no  earthly  guarantee  that  history  will  not  repeat 
itself.  And  in  this  way  we  are  brought  to  the  profoundly 


14 


interesting  question : “ What  is  our  duty  as  Churches 
and  presbyters  arid  people,  in  this  crisis  of  belief?  ” 

You  will  agree  with  me  that  it  would  be  out  of  place 
to  say  anything,  and,  indeed,  that  it  would  not  be  pos- 
sible to  make  any  valuable  remarks  of  a general  charac- 
ter on  the  relation  to  the  present  crisis  of  the  Church’s 
power  of  discipline.  For  the  right  of  discipline  does  not 
belong  to  this  Council,  but  to  each  separate  Church  here 
represented.  And  since  the  complex  conditions,  under 
which  each  Church  lives  and  does  its  work,  differ  from 
those  of  every  other  Church,  each  Church  can,  far  more 
wisely  than  all  of  us  combined,  conclude  in  what  cases 
to  exercise  and  in  what  cases  not  to  exercise  judicial 
functions.  But  there  are  other  duties  of  which  I may 
appropriately  speak ; and  I shall,  in  conclusion,  speak 
briefly  of  three,  which  belong,  respectively,  to  the  intel- 
lect, the  feelings,  and  the  will : 

Our  intellectual  duty  is  obvious.  It  is  to  meet  the 
demands  of  the  Biblical  critics  with  rigid  scrutiny  and 
with  counter  criticism.  And  here  I will  take  the  liberty 
to  say  that  the  value  of  the  higher  criticism,  as  an  instru- 
ment of  knowledge,  is  apt  to  be  grossly  exaggerated  by 
those  who  employ  it.  No  one  will  deny  that  it  is  an 
important  adjunct  to  historical  testimony  when  the  latter 
is  aiding  us  toward  conclusions  in  which  the  mind  will 
rest  content.  But  in  cases  where  there  is  no  historical 
testimony,  and  in  cases  especially  in  which  it  antagonizes 
historical  testimony,  the  evidence  is  abundant  that  be- 
cause it  is  purely  subjective  and  individual  and,  there- 
fore, under  no  laws  which  can  be  approximately  formu- 
lated, the  higher  criticism  has  been  changeful  in  method, 
capricious  in  opinion,  and  temporary  in  its  conclusions. 
In  the  nature  of  the  case  its  processes  can  end  in  nothing 
more  solid  than  a working  hypothesis,  when  there  is  no 
testimony  beside  the  literary  phenomena  which  it  is 
scrutinizing.  And  unless  this  happens  to  be  the  only 
hypothesis  possible  in  the  circumstances  (and  that  can 
rarely  happen),  its  conclusions  can  never  command  per- 
manent and  contented  belief. 

Take,  for  example,  the  case  of  the  first  book  of  the 
Bible.  Let  us  grant,  if  you  will,  that  the  higher  criticism 
has  made  clear,  that  you  can  explain  all  its  literary 
traits,  on  the  supposition  that  it  is  a late  compilation  of 
several  documents,  each  of  which  has  a religious  tend- 
ency different  from  the  tendencies  of  the  others.  In 
granting  this  we  grant  everything  that  by  literary  criti- 


cism  can  possibly  be  proven.  But  is  this  particular 
hypothesis  the  only  one  to  which  its  literary  phenomena 
can  be  made  to  respond  ? I should  say  that,  given  twenty 
acute  and  speculative  minds,  it  would  be  possible  to  con- 
struct as  many  different  hypotheses  of  the  book’s  origin, 
of  each  of  which  you  could  asjustly  say : “It  accounts  for 
every  literary  phenomenon  in  the  book.”  And  is  the 
Book  of  Genesis  peculiar  in  its  susceptibility  to  this 
speculative  division  into  conflicting  documents?  It  is 
not  peculiar  at  all.  This  susceptibility  is  a trait  which 
it  has  in  common  with  every  piece  of  literature  the  world 
contains.  If  you  care  to  be  speculative,  you  can  ravel 
out  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  the  parable  of  the  prod- 
igal son,  or  of  the  good  Samaritan,  any  oration  of  Ed- 
mund Burke,  or  any  essay  of  Lord  Macauly,  into  con- 
stituent documents  of  conflicting  tendencies,  and  the 
literary  phenomena  of  the  object  you  are  raveling  will 
all  be  accounte  I for.  Can  conclusions  reached  in  this 
way  ever  amount  to  more  than  provisional  hypotheses? 
If  they  shall  command  general  and  permanent  belief,  it 
will  be  more  than  they  have  done  in  the  past. 

And,  certainly,  it  goes  without  saying,  that  they  can 
never  serve  as  the  basis  of  positive  religious  institutions, 
organized  to  evoke  devout  emotions  and  to  constrain  to 
self-sacrificing  lives.  I believe,  therefore,  that  the  intel- 
lectual duty  which  presses  most  severely  on  the  Re- 
formed Churches  to-day,  is  not  the  duty  of  concessive 
apologetics,  but  the  cheerful  and  by  no  means  difficult 
task  of  pointing  out  to  the  new  Biblical  critics,  the  very 
serious  limitations  of  their  method  as  an  instrument  of 
knowledge,  and  its  more  serious  limitations  as  a power 
to  compel  general  or  permanent  conviction — limitations 
which  they,  like  the  most  of  their  predecessors,  appear 
to  have  ignored  or  forgotten.  I am  well  aware,  and  we 
are  often  told,  that  the  new  Biblical  criticisms  derive 
great  force,  at  present,  from  the  prevailing  naturalistic 
habit  of  mind.  Precisely  so.  Their  greatest  power  is 
derived,  not  from  the  higher  criticism,  but  from  the 
present  mighty  naturalistic  drift.  This  is  exactly  my 
contention — that  but  for  this  present  tendency  toward 
naturalism  as  a theory  which  will  explain  all  religions, 
the  conclusions  of  the  new  criticism  could  not,  in  the 
nature  of  the  case,  be  widely  accepted  or  strongly  held. 
If  this  be  true, — and  I believe  it  to  be  true, — then  now, 
as  always,  naturalism  is  the  foe  which  confronts  us.  We 


16 


know  it  well.  We  have  met  it  often  in  many  guises ; 
and  the  recollection  of  our  past  battles  should  forbid 
fear,  on  our  part,  as  to  the  result  of  another  conflict. 

Our  great  duty  in  the  sphere  of  the  feeling,  is  the 
duty  of  charity,  it  may  well  cause  us  anxiety,  that,  in 
a degree  not  to  be  affirmed  of  previous  movements  of  the 
kind,  this  movement  has  taken  possession  of  earnest,  able 
and  sincere  minds  within  our  Churches.  Of  course,  this 
should  make  us  more  alert  and  vigilant.  At  the  same 
time,  we  should  not  forget  the  sincerity  and  the  devout- 
ness of  tliose  who  are  our  brethren,  and  who,  inconsist- 
ent as  they  appear  clearly  to  us  to  be,  are  still  praying 
and  laboring  and  sacrificing,  in  order  to  honor  Jesus 
Christ,  the  Son  of  God  and  Saviour  of  the  World.  Let 
us  remember,  that  perhaps  no  one  of  us  is  thoroughly 
consistent  intellectually  ; and  let  us  remind  ourselves, 
even  in  the  midst  of  our  conflicts  for  the  faith,  that  as 
the  greatest  of  the  graces  is  charity,  so  it  is  the  most 
difficult  to  maintain  and  exhibit  when  we  are  engaged 
in  theological  warfare. 

Finally,  our  great  duty  in  the  sphere  of  the  will  is  to 
pray.  Never  does  the  Christian’s  will  energize  more 
mightily  and  to  more  blessed  purpose  than  when  in  pro- 
found faith  in  Jesus  Christ  he  seeks  a spiritual  benedic- 
tion from  Almighty  God.  And  surely  our  Churches  can 
never  pray  with  stronger  confidence,  than  when  they 
appeal  to  him  in  behalf  of  the  cause  of  Iloly  Scripture. 
Let  us  pray,  then,  for  a deeper  faith  in  the  Holy  Bible. 
Let  us  pray  that  we  may  revere  Jt  more  highly,  and 
study  it  more  devoutly,  and  believe  it  more  implicitly, 
and  obey  it  more  heartily.  Let  us  pray  for  the  illumin- 
ing Spirit.  And  let  us  remember,  brethren,  the  years  of 
the  right  hand  of  the  Most  High.  As  we  remember 
them,  our  faith  will  grow  strong.  We  shall  be  sure  that 
the  present  crisis  of  belief  will  pass  away,  and  that  a 
new  Revival  like  the  Reformation  of  the  sixteenth,  or 
the  Evangelical  awakening  of  the  eighteenth  century, 
will  bless  our  Reformed  Churches.  In  the  blessed  at- 
mosphere of  that  revival  it  may  be  that  some  one,  who 
shall  stand  in  the  place  I occupy  to-day,  will  employ,  to 
describe  our  revived  belief  and  obedience,  the  words  of 
the  Apostle — We  are  born  again,  not  of  corruptible  seed, 
but  of  incorruptible,  by  the  Word  of  God,  which  liveth 
and  abideth  forever. 


